Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

B.P. SINGH AND ORS versus DIRECTOR GENERAL, ORDNANCE FACTORY AND ORS

Decided
9 July 1991
Judges listed
KULDIP SINGH (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1991] 2 S.C.R. 836 · 1991 INSC 143

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

KULDIP SINGH, J. B.P. Singh and nine other teachers employed in the schools run by the Ordnance Factories at Kanpur and Muradnagar, have filed this petition under Article 32 of the Constitu_tion of India challenging their retirement from service on attaining the age of 58 years. They claim that they are entitled to have the age of superannuation fixed at 60 years instead of 58 years.

p. 837, margin A

Mr. O.P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has contended that the age of superannuation of the teachers working in the schools controlled by various departments of Government of India other than the Defence Department has been enhanced to 60 years and according to him there is no justification to single-out the teachers working in the schools run by the Ordnance Factories under the control of the Defence Department of Government of India

p. 837, margin B

Mr. Sharma has relied upon a Memorandum issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Education dated September 6, 1983 by which the age of retirement of Delhi School Teachers and teachers in other Union Territories was raised to 60 years. He has also relied on a Memorandum .dated March 9, 1984 issued by the Railway Board wherein the age of superannuation of t~e teachers_ w<:>_rking In the Railway schools was also enhanced to 60 years.

p. 837, margin B

Mr. Sharma has thus argued that the action of the respondents in retiring the petitioners at the age of 58 years whereas retaining similarly situated teachers working in other departments of Government of India upto the age of 60 years, is discriminatory and as such violative of Artic:_les 14 and 16 of th"- Constitution of India. Prima facie there seems to be force in the argument but in view of the Office Memorandum dated March 10, 1989 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, New Delhi, it is not necessary to examine the sa.;,e. Shri N. Siva Subramaniam, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Defence has, alongwith an additional affidavit dated March 16, 1989 · filed the said Memorandum in this court which is reproduced hereunder:

p. 837, margin E

"As the Ministry of Human Resource Development etc. are aware, the age of superannuation for all Central Government employees, save with the exception of a few categories, has been fixed at 58 years and they are to retire on the last day of the month in which they attain that age.

p. 837, margin G

However, there is no uniformity in the age of superannuation of teachers in various schools/institutions in the Central Government. 2. In the light of the observations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission regarding the age of retirement of Central Government employees, the Government has reviewed the entire question de novo and it has now been decided that the age of retirement on superannuation of all teachers working in Central Government Departments and Organisations including Union Territories may be uniformly fixed at 58 years, whether they are in the Ministry of Education, Ministry of Railways, Ministry of Defence or any other Ministry/Department or in Delhi Administration. Consequently, in schools/institutions where the age of retirement on superannuation for teachers is presently fixed at 58 years, no change is required to be made and the incumbents as well as future recruits shall retire on attaining the age of 58 years. However, in regard to schools/institutions where the age of retirement on superannuation for teachers is presently fixed at 60 years/the same shall be lowered to 58 years w.e.f. 1st April, 1989 with the _exception that the teachers who had joined such schools/institutions P.rior to this date, shall continue to enjoy the existing benefit and superannuate on attaining the age of 60 years. Further, in respect of such schools/institutions, no new appointment, either on regular or ad hoc basis, shall be made between

p. 838

the date of this Office Memorandum and 1.4.1989."

p. 838, margin E

It is thus obvious that with effect from April 1, 1989 the age of superannuation of all teachers working in Central Governr;ient Departments and Organisations including Union Territories has been uniformly fixed at 58 years. The only argument advanced by Mr. Sharma has, thus, been completely answered by the above quoted Office Memorandum.

p. 838, margin E

The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. V.P.R. Petition dismissed.

p. 838, margin F